Senate Oks Campaign Reform

On Vote Of 59-41 Mccain-feingold Goes On To House

April 03, 2001|By William Neikirk, Washington Bureau.

WASHINGTON — With a broad sweep of reform that could one day revolutionize American politics, the Senate voted Monday to prohibit political parties from tapping the rich vein of unregulated "soft-money" donations used in recent years to sway U.S. elections.

The Senate approved the soft-money ban by a vote of 59-41, handing Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who popularized the issue during last year's Republican primaries, a sweet victory after six years of persistent effort.

The measure, co-sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), bars virtually unlimited contributions to parties by companies, groups and individuals. Since the 1980s, this soft money increasingly has been used as a source of campaign finance in addition to "hard money" contributions that go directly to individual candidates.

Even as the legislation went to the House, where it could still be blocked or changed, the growing prospect that the measure could become law raised concerns that the two national parties could be weakened and independent special-interest groups could be strengthened by its provisions.

Some analysts said yes, some said no. But at the very least they agreed that the Democratic and Republican Parties would find it challenging to replace the nearly $500 million in soft money contributions they raised for the 2000 election cycle.

"You just can't take that much money away from anybody and not weaken them," said Jan Baran, a lawyer, election law specialist and former counsel for the Republican National Committee.

Curtis Gans, head of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, agreed: "What it does is strengthen the outside interests at the expense of the integrating institutions, the two parties."

Some critics fear candidates will become beholden to interest groups that, barred from giving soft money to parties, would try to influence elections on their own.

Anthony Corrado, a Colby College law professor, co-chairman of the Campaign Finance Institute and White House aide in the Carter administration, said he doubted that independent groups such as the National Rifle Association, the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club would overtake the parties in campaign clout.

"I don't believe the parties will be seriously weakened by this," Corrado said. He said that during the 1980s, when the Democratic and Republican Parties had to rely on hard money to survive, independent organizations had never gained the upper hand over the political parties.

Back to the hard way

Thomas Mann, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, agreed with Corrado, saying that the two parties have depended on soft money for so long that they have neglected party-building activities.

If the McCain-Feingold bill becomes law, he said, the parties will be forced to return to raising money the hard way, through seeking smaller contributions.

Twelve Republicans voted for the bill, including Sen. Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, and three Democrats--Sens. John Breaux of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Ernest Hollings of South Carolina--opposed it.

Though similar measures have passed the House by overwhelming margins, Republican leaders served notice they will try to block the Senate version. Also, some Democrats have reservations as the bill moves closer to passage.

McCain urged his Senate colleagues "to take a risk for America" in approving the bill. "I will go to my grave deeply grateful for the honor of being part of it," he said of its passage.

Yet opponents such as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the measure "fatally unconstitutional" and said the 41 "no" votes sent a message that it might not pass Congress.

The measure would raise the hard-money limit for individual contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 per year. The limit for contributions to national parties would be increased from $20,000 to $25,000. An individual could give a total of $75,000 to candidates and parties over a two-year election cycle.

Under the bill, state parties could still accept soft-money donations but could not spend any money on federal elections.

Curbing influence

The bill also would seek to curb the influence of unions, corporations and independent groups that finance so-called issue ads that are little more than veiled commercials on behalf of candidates they support or attacks on candidates they oppose.

The bill would ban the broadcasting of such political advertising by these groups within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary.

Several analysts said they doubted that such restrictions on independent groups would be upheld by the Supreme Court. If it is finally approved by Congress, the legislation is apt to be tested quickly in the courts.

Soft money emerged as a major source of funding for national elections during the 1980s after the two parties found loopholes in Watergate-era limitations on campaign financing. According to Corrado, soft money raised by both parties totaled $487.5 million during the 2000 election cycle.